This project page is move-protected.

Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.


Start allowing game strategies[edit source]

Proposal[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Discussion[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Implementation[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Draft policy created[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Post-closure discussions[edit source]

A question about copyright[edit source]

Btw, is map art in Minecraft under free use? Can they be uploaded to wikimedia commons? In case you don’t know, in Minecraft you can create art by placing blocks on the ground in a certain area and then use a map to map this area. This has many applications. This has many applications and I’m interested to know if it also has to be uploaded to Wikibooks because it’s technically the creation of the guy who draws the map art. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: I don't think so, no. If "map art" involves objects and assets from Minecraft itself, then that would not be free use (in general, unless the non-free elements can be cropped out). However, if it's just a drawing solely by the author, that would qualify. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, I see. Thank you very much! I think that it’s ok to upload to Wikibooks because if I cropped out the surrounding how would I prove that it’s a screenshot from Minecraft and not just something from MS-Paint. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back on this topic, if we want to make the "open-source" video game guide, what if we needed to uses game art of the game itself? I believe we couldn't just upload to Wikimedia Commons ?
Note: It shouldn't be a problem for Open Source Game like [[ https://www.unixmen.com/gaming-on-linux1131-19-awesome-opensource-games-for-linux/ ]] but I meant for commercial close sourced games ? Asked by Encik Tekateki (discusscontribs) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Encik Tekateki: yes it is a bit tricky, as Commons isn't really an option, unless you go the c:Commons:OTRS route or create your own images.
However we are discussing a new non-free media policy below; see the draft at Wikibooks:Media/sandbox. It is pretty well inline with that of Wikipedia, and video game articles there often have non-free media illustrating them, which is allowed within policy. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May we record the chess moves from the automatic demonstrations by the computer with regard to copyright? So many video games feature chess and its variants like Chinese chess. If yes, maybe the notations from the computer playing both sides will aid studying.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 00:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be okay personally, though I presume you're referring to chess moves given out by the computer when playing against someone else? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the moves by computer vs. computer, like a sample in Star Wars Chess.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that can be copyrighted, correct me if I'm wrong. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems correct, see see this recent judgement. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the valuable information that encourages studying chess.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collections of Wikibooks about video games[edit source]

Btw, if I make a collection of a wikibook about video game strategies, and the book contains fair use images, can I also use a fair use image as the cover image of the book? Because I think that a screenshot of the game would work best as a cover image but maybe that’s not allowed, idk. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: as far as I'm aware, Collections is pretty well defunct. It was basically a way of collecting a book or several books together to create a downloadable PDF for offline use. That capability is broken at the moment, although it may be possible to order a paid printed copy of books (at least, you can do that at Wikiedia). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, thank you very much for the reply! It’s possible to order collections as printed books also in Wikibooks (I never did but I looked on the previews). But it has some issues, for example this collection about roblox game development contains a quinze in it (can be seen here, and in the preview it shows just the mediawiki code that was used to create this quiz not the quiz itself. This made me wonder if the same problems happen when creating pdf versions, but back to topic - my original question is can I use fair use images in the title page of the pdf version? 😅 If not, can I at lease use them in the pdf file itself? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Wikibooks:Collections/ROBLOX Game Development links to pages in the Roblox Game Development and Lua Programming. Things like quizzes aren't functional in PDF versions (as far as I know). As far as I'm aware, rules for online and PDF versions are identical with respect to images and everything else; but its best not to use non-free media in title pages, as it may go against the rules. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, I see. I don’t think that quizzes are supposed to be “functional” in pdf versions (functional in the sense that they actually work - a pdf version is meant for printing if someone wanted an “interactive” experience, they would read the original book in Wikibooks. I do however expect them to render properly, I want the readers to see a box with the questions and the answers and not <quiz display="simple"> {What is ROBLOX? |type="[]"} + A website where the content is produced by users (a user-generated website) || Almost all of the content on the ROBLOX website is produced by users. This includes assets in the catalog, content such as comments, forum posts, group wall posts and so on, and also games. - A website that gives information on a particular topic (an informational website) + A platform for developing games (a game development platform) || ROBLOX can be used as a game development platform because users can use the ROBLOX game engine to develop games. + A website for hosting games (a game host) || Games that use the ROBLOX engine can be hosted on ROBLOX..
I think you see what I mean. For copyright purposes, this is the link to the permanent revision from which I took this question (from my understanding I must link to it otherwise it’s copyright infringement). That’s the sort of thing that the collection creator does so I was wandering if pdf versions have the same problem. Again, I don’t expect an interactive quiz in pdf only an image of how it looks like in Wikibooks. Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: and @Gifnk dlm 2020:, I think the PDF version of a book isn't too different from taking a print version of any book and saving that to PDF. With that in mind, I think it's OK to have non-free images for a PDF version. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: and@Gifnk dlm 2020: I was talking about the title page. For the book mentioned, the title page is Roblox Game Development, and there is no image. But if you were creating a Minecraft title page, one solution would be to use something fromc:Category:Minecraft. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: Even for the title page, I think it is reasonable to assume that the fair-use image is useful, as it "identifies" the book. Hence I am personally inclined to think that this usage is fine. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: well you could be right. But erring on the side of caution, it might be best to use a free image if available. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: From what I see, c:category:Minecraft has many good images that can be used for title pages. c:category:Roblox has much less images and most of them are not suitable for being on a title page. the pdf version of the book about Mandarin has an image on the title page while Chinese (Mandarin)/Print version doesn’t. And when I asked about using fair use images in title pages I meant is there a policy that forbids that. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: No, I'm not aware of such a policy (one that explicitly blocks fair-use images in PDF versions) Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, thank you very much! I heard that in Wikipedia there’s a policy that doesn’t allow fair use images as cover images of books but maybe I’m mistaken. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 21:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I am not aware of such a rule (also I am not sure what "cover images of books" would mean for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, unlike Wikibooks). Regardless, I think you'll be fine from a Wikibooks perspective. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, I meant w:Book:The Simpsons episodes and other similar books. They are collections of different Wikipedia articles and if I’m not mistaken I think there’s a rule that forbids the usage of fair use images as the cover image, but I could be wrong. If you press on the cover image of this book you will see that it’s in public domain because it doesn’t meet the “Threshold of originality”. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 09:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walkthroughs[edit source]

Ou the new policy that can be found at Wikibooks:Strategy guides only discusses strategy guides so I was wandering are walkthroughs still not allowed? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: What are the differences? I presume walkthroughs would be describing the journey of a game? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, exactly. After seeing your comment, I researched a bit more into the difference between a strategy and a walkthrough, and in w:Strategy guide, it’s written: “Strategy guides are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The line between strategy guides and walkthroughs is somewhat blurred, with the former often containing or being written around the latter. Strategy guides are often published in print, both in book form and also as articles within video game magazines. In cases of exceptionally popular game titles, guides may be sold through more mainstream publication channels, such as bookstores or even newsstands. Some publishers also sell E-Book versions on their websites.”. In w:Video game walkthrough it’s written: “A video game walkthrough is a guide aimed towards improving a player's skill within a particular video game and often designed to assist players in completing either an entire video game or specific elements. Walkthroughs may alternatively be set up as a playthrough, where players record themselves playing through a game and upload or live-stream it to the internet. Walkthroughs may be considered guides on helping to enhance the experience of players, to assist towards unlocking game achievements or simply as a means to socialise with like-minded individuals as a distraction from everyday life.”. When asking this question I didn’t realize they were so similar to each other. I thought that strategy guides and walkthroughs are entirely different - with strategy guides only giving strategies and walkthroughs just giving a step by step tutorial without explaining why this is the best way and without giving multiple ways. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I always intended it to describe walkthroughs as well as strategy guides, so I have amended the lead to make this clear. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added the words “and walkthroughs”. Thank you every much! (btw, to y’all wandering I didn’t ping him because I thanked him using the thanks log and I think it’s spam to also ping here.) -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question about game notability and screenshots[edit source]

Hi, been a long time since the last message was posted here, but I have a question regarding a wikibook I would like to start working on. I have been thinking recently about a wikibook about Fireboy and Watergirl, and I have two questions. The first is wether or not this game is notable? I have found several reviews (1, 2, 3, 4, and much more). Is this enough to show that the game is notable? Another question is about screenshots. The way I envision the book is that every chapter will be about a certain level in the game and will contain at least one screenshot of this level (sometimes more is necessary) and a guide on the different ways to pass this level. I have created the book Minecraft resource gathering but since I’m a bit busy I didn’t have the time to make screenshots for the book. Since Fireboy and Watergirl can be played in the browser I think I will be able to start working on this book right now theoretically. But does such book follow the guidelines? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: hi. My feelings is that the game has a reasonable appearances of significance, particularly on the basis of the Australian Council on Children and the Media. For your second question, the main question to ask yourself is about this from WB:FU: Contextual significance. Non-free media are used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in question, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, avoid decorative usage, the image should help with understanding of the topic. Post the minimum number of images to convey this, and include a rationale for usage each time. Also, try to keep the resolution below 800*600. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your screenshot proposal looks OK. WB:FU is meant to prevent unnecessary use of non-free images; if you think it's needed, go ahead. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, thank you very much! I don’t think there’s any way to describe the levels in Fireboy and Watergirl without showing screenshots of them, and if the screenshots end up being more than 800*600 (which I hardly believe will happen) I will rescale it. But what do you mean by including the rationale each time? Should I write with each image that I upload a justification to why this image is necessary? If yes, then how should I word this justification? Is there any example that I can follow? Thanks in advance -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 19:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: see WB:UPLOAD point 5: you need to include the {{non-free use rationale}} template for each use of the file, which must be filled with a rationale for "Why a book or module requires the use of this media". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, I see. Can you send an example of a file with non free rational so that I can get a better idea of what should be written? Thanks in advance. P.S. I’m so used to Middle English Wikipedia that I want to type Wp/enm/Ping instead of ping every time. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: see any of the files listed at Category:Non-free files, there are literally hundreds of files you can look at. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think I understand what should be written. I will start work on this book in the coming days. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, sorry, I forgot to ping you. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: can I upload an image that is 922*486 pixels or do I need to resize it? 922*486=453438 and 800*600=480000 so technically 922*486<800*600. I just wanted to makes sure that it’s not against Wikibooks policies. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: It's OK, the limit is an advisory for a reason after all. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question about game manuals[edit source]

Hey, I've recently joined, and would like to aid the games section by adding game manuals from various systems. Would game manuals fall under copyright, and would they even be allowed in the games section? Thank you in advance. -LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LocalHOI2Fan: What do you mean by "game manuals"? Do you mean the official documentation from the game manufacturer? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard The manuals included with games that are sold physically (or sometimes included digitally) that include information on the games, (such as how to play them, online functionality, etc.) without typically giving the information a strategy guide or walkthrough would. -LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC) LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 19:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LocalHOI2Fan: In that case, the documentation itself must be under a valid license (that is, it cannot be fair-use). Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: So if I were to add game manuals, I would need to provide proof of owning the game and the manual? LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LocalHOI2Fan:, a valid licence doesn’t mean owning or not owning the game. What Leaderboard meant is the copyright of the manual. If you create something you automatically own it and people can’t copy and distribute it without your permission. If the developers of the game wrote that they allow all people to distribute it then you can upload it but I think Wikisource would be a more appropriate place for this. Fair use refers to a way to distribute copyrighted stuff legally under certain restrictions if it’s (you are allowed to quote few sentences in order to write a review for example). Most likely it’s copyrighted because the copyright even of the earliest games hasn’t expired yet. Still worth it to check about the specific game you want. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, correct me if I’m wrong, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I upload properly[edit source]

Hi, I have just uploaded File:Fireboy watergirl forest temple levels.png. Did I do it properly? And the author should be the one who created the screenshot, right? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: sorry I forgot to ping. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Yes and yes. Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of writing[edit source]

Hi, I have just recently written the page about the first level in FireBoy and Watergirl. Can you please check if it’s quality is good enough? If someone who never played this game sees it will they understand how to pass the level? Starting from this level things just get more complicated so if it’s not clear I prefer to know now and not later. Here’s the page: Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1. Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 08:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and did my fair share of improving the page. This is what I can conclude for this page.
The first point of improvement is breaking up your text into paragraphs. Most likely the audience for these types of pages are teenagers/children. To improve the fluidity of the page, breaking the text into small paragraphs will be easier for a person who's new to the game and needs step-by-step instructions. Secondly, repetitive use of "then" is irritating to read. Vary your transitional words. Here's a really good list of transitional words: https://www.smart-words.org/linking-words/transition-words.html. Also, "just" is used way too many times. If a sentence sounds fine without "just", then you probably don't need to add that word. Thirdly, being specific is essential, especially for a step-by-step instructional guide. Using words like "it" as in "Just move it till it", and "one" in "the platform will go back up so the second player has to stand on the the second pink button in order to let the first one get up" is perplexing. What is "it"? What is "the first one"? I was confused when I stumbled on these sentences while editing the page. Fourthly, grammar needs to improve and typos need to be fixed. Statements like "Just move it till it touches the wall on the left and use to as a stepping stone..." and "...so the second player has to stand on the the second pink button..." are not what is expected from a quality page.
Other than that, I'm very much interested to see what other contributions you have! Thank you for your contributions and please reach out if you have any more questions. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atcovi: thank you very much! I will take all your comments into consideration in future pages. About the buttons, I agree that it’s irritating. In this level it’s more or less ok since the design is simple - you just start from ten bottom and work your way up to the top, but other levels have more complicated designs, so I was wondering is it possible to add text on top of the image by any way except editing the image itself? I think it will be more convenient if the buttons are numbered and the text will refer to them as button number 1 and button number 2. I mean sort of like in w:London, if you press on the map you will see that the dot and the word “London” are not part of the image. Is it possible to add numbers in a similar way? Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your idea. It would be pretty helpful to include dots. I suggest maybe experimenting with similar templates (example, w:Template:Australia Labelled Map) in a sandbox. Use the documentation as a guide and cater it to your topic. I'm piled up with other matters at the moment, but I could assist with this after my examination period. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your exams! I will start experimenting with these templates in the sandbox. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started experimenting with this in Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1 but there’s a problem. From what I saw this problem isn’t visible in desktop view but if you go to mobile view you will see that almost half of the image is cut out. I couldn’t figure out what’s causing this problem. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard, Atcovi: If you have time, do you know what’s causing the problem? It’s a bit weird as the problem is only visible in Mobile View and not in Desktop View and that’s probably why the revisions were accepted by whoever reviewed the page. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Done I've cleaned up the syntax somewhat. Please see the documentation at Template:Image label begin or w:Template:Image label begin for the correct syntax. Also, this page is for proposals, ask technical questions at Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance please. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 19:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrategyWiki[edit source]

I don't appreciate one user importing strategywiki instead of building your own content. StrategyWiki is not a "fork" of wikibooks. Wikibooks kicked all strategy guides off the site almost 15 years ago. Since then many users decided to contribute to strategywiki directly. Your users importing content from us without any discussion is not something I would have expected from a reputable community like wikibooks. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 22:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's how free licensing works. As much as you may dislike it, it is not something you can change, even if it were valid to assume bad faith about local editors here. No discussion is required under the license and the imports are proceeding with the mechanisms that are provided to meet the terms of the license. Izno (discusscontribs) 22:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. These few users are targeting our "featured" guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one guide, Mario Adventure, that was deleted off StrategyWiki a few days ago, but is being allowed here. Since several of the guides originated from here & I try to attribute the sources (and nobody has shown significant opposition yet), I figured it wouldn't be an issue bringing them over. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 00:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this. We have developed extensive tools and means of verification over the years that WB simply doesn't have, and is unlikely to invest in. You are bringing information over that, as time goes by, is likely to be corrected and updated on our site, and readers here will not receive the benefit of those updates. Over the years, we have defined StrategyWiki as a go-to source for video game wiki walkthroughs. Bringing them here does no benefit to the video game community, it only potentially fractures that effort. SW exists for a reason. Duplicating the guides here serves no beneficial purpose. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part about this, is that these guides are particularly reliant on the images that these guides include. SW is an extremely visual site. You're pulling all of this text over without any of the accompanying images. The readers of WB will be utterly confused and perplexed by the references that aren't present. This whole effort is a gigantic mistake. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 01:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind restoring any of those guides that were outside StrategyWiki scope and having them moved here (Super Mario Forever, Koopa Kingdom Escape). I take issue with you targeting our most popular guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, Prod, ProcyonSW, 2005-Fan: We are not able to prevent the user from importing from strategywiki as long as the licences match, unless you get consensus from this community to prevent importation from StrategyWiki. There is little I can do myself as the licence does not prohibit importing. Same for images under Wikibooks' fair use policy. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed above that @Pandakekok9, Mrjulesd: mentioned about not wanting to compete with StrategyWiki. I'd love to hear their opinions on transwiking entire guides over. @Gifnk dlm 2020: point about creating competition for a guide is fine, as long as someone shows interest in maintaining the guide here, which is not what this user is doing. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 15:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with transwiking or using content from other wikis. It's problematic, IMO, if the said content has been completed and polished almost to perfection in SW, and no significant changes in the content were made to differentiate it from the original.

I think a better idea here is if Wikibooks writes the guide for an audience that StrategyWiki doesn't target. It seems SW writes guides for a general audience, so how about we focus on the specific ones? Like writing an RTA speedrun guide for Super Mario Bros. on the NES. Pandakekok9 (discusscontribs) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandakekok9: From Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney The guide you are about to read was originally written on StrategyWiki, where it is the #1 most popular guide. Since July 3, 2021, it has also been included here at Wikibooks.
On StrategyWiki, this is a featured guide, meaning it meets our highest quality standards. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All (also a featured guide on StrategyWiki) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (complete/stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda (stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd.
Rest of the Ace Attorney series: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations (stage 4 guide), Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney (stage 4 guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies (incomplete guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice (incomplete guide), Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth (stage 4 guide), Gyakuten Kenji 2 (stage 4 guide). Notice that the only ones transwiki'd are the ones which are complete that probably can't be improved much? This is targeted and this is problematic.
Speedrun? Sure write it, we might even link to it.
I ask that the community here decides if this is what you want, allow 2005-Fan to make the strategy guide section a mirror of StrategyWiki, or if you want to build your own content. As Jimbo and Leaderboard have said, it's up to the community here to decide how you wish to proceed. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: I was thinking all of yesterday on how to go about this & respond to both you and @ProcyonSW:. In this edit summary I said that I'd make the Oracle games the last two that I'd directly import over (seeing as they go hand in hand with Link's Awakening, which has already been brought over). After reading some of you & Procyon's comments I felt a bit remorseful for directly adding too much, and there was a point raised that the ones that were added are yet to have their images added (I am still planning to add to those). If this continues Wikibooks could earn a reputation of having tons of imports & not enough original content. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did import Final Fantasy Mystic Quest some days ago, and that one is very incomplete, so it wasn't all the 100% guides. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard, QuiteUnusual:. Until the community decides if mirroring StrategyWiki is a good way to jump start wikibooks content, would it be possible to remove their import access? The original admin request was only for undeleting content. This goes beyond that "temporary admin" scope. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: I did ask for permission before doing additional tasks. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you did, and if you had asked for importer access at RFP, I would have granted it. There's no limitation on importing compatible material from other sources - a large chunk of Wikibooks came from Wikipedia as well. I don't see any need for a community discussion about copying from another project - it is both implicitly and explicitly allowed and there is nothing in policy to suggest limitations should be imposed and that has been the case for more than ten years ("At Wikibooks you can request pages be imported. Any pages within our scope will then be imported if possible" sums it up nicely. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may request importer after September 28, depending on how much I get done now. The only use I'd have for importer is for deleted/redirected Wikipedia gaming articles (a LOT of them), as I've relocated and recycled several of them here lately. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: The policy allows for clarification/amendement of what temporary admins are allowed to do by asking any permanent administrator, and 2005-Fan had asked me to confirm whether importing was OK. And I was fine with it, citing QuiteUnusual for rationale. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, @QuiteUnusual:, and @2005-Fan:, it is easy to hide behind bureaucratic distinctions of what is, and is not allowed. Whether what 2005-Fan is doing is allowed or not is not being debated. Everyone, including myself and @Prod: recognize that it is allowed and permitted. I am still attempting to appeal to all of your sense of decency, in an effort to, as @Izno: suggested, convince you to stop. We are asking you to examine whether it is truly in either of our sites' best interests to conduct yourselves in this manner by endorsing 2005-Fan's course of action. I would argue that it's detrimental to SW and WB, for all of the reasons that I outlined below. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: That's what I am waiting for. As I said, I cannot comment on whether what 2005-Fan's action is "right" or not since I don't have a background in video games. Hence I am watching what others have to say. As I said to 2005-Fan on my talk page, to my end what he's doing is OK as I can only look from a policy point of view, it's others like you that have an issue and that's what we are discussing on. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I take a different view. It isn't just allowed, it is positively encouraged. The reason for the creation of all the projects was to create and share knowledge as widely as possible. The choice of site licenses was deliberate to encourage the copying, with attribution, of information from other places. The correct, and "decent", thing to do is to proactively encourage the sharing of content to make it as widely available as possible to the community of humans. In my opinion your belief that it is "wrong" is striking against the whole principles of the free content movement (see the quote below from CC, the purpose of the license is to "encourage reuse", not to limit it). You are welcome to ask the community yourself. I'm just saying I'm not stopping editors doing the thing these projects were intended to do unless the community decides to ask them to stop. The default position is it is both allowed and encouraged. "Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization that enables sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge through the provision of free legal tools. Our legal tools help those who want to encourage reuse of their works by offering them for use under generous, standardized terms"[1]. The team at strategywiki is more than happy to leverage other people's contributions, given for free, and those editors agreed to license the content for reuse. You might like to consider whether they agree with you that when they knowingly licensed the content that way, the "management" of the project might try and limit its use. You were also comfortable using other people's freely given contributions - such as MediaWiki. As such, I don't think you've got a case that the content shouldn't be reused. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We will clearly perpetually disagree about this. My perception of your position is that you are choosing to defend an ideology regardless of the negative consequences (to both sites, not just to SW). But it's your position and I respect your right to it. I suppose I would be a little less outraged if it wasn't just SW that content was being poached from. There are dozens of video game guide wikis with a compatible license. Unless I've failed to witness it, I haven't see you transwiki content from any of them. You appear to be singling SW out. On the one hand, I could be flattered that you chose our content over everyone else's. But at the end of the day, we're still the only ones being subject to this treatment, either because of some shared history between our sites, or because of certain users' personal vendettas against SW's network (and if you look into it, your Results May Vary). So if sharing is so encouraged, where is all the sharing from other compatible sites? Why is SW the only target? I'd genuinely like an explanation to that question. From any of you. (Sorry, thought I was logged in...) ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 17:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: It all depends on the editors that are working on the book. Indeed, as you say, importation can be done from any wiki with a valid licence, and no discrimination (other than the transwiki allowlist) is done at all. If 2005-Fan (or anyone for that matter) wants to import from another compatible site, we'll allow that (and they've been doing a lot of that from Wikipedia for example). There is no policy that "singles" StrategyWiki. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's not a policy. I know no one is directing users to transwiki SW. But that still doesn't explain why this experience has been isolated to us. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You signed up to produce free content. Being annoyed when it (potentially) gets a signal boost because the content was copied is antithetical to the spirit and wording of the license itself. That content is free to reuse for any use whatsoever so long as credit is provided (i.e. the history page) and the reuser does not attempt to attach other terms for other users (or remove these two terms) (under CC BY SA, anyway). I'm sorry you feel you have been wronged, but that's just the reality of the situation. At the end of the day, it is absolutely "right", because that is both the legal and social contract you signed when you decided to contribute under the license in question.
As stated elsewhere, you have some options:
  1. Do nothing. The content you originally produced may continue to make its way here. It may not continue to develop, in which case Google probably eats the Wikibooks version forever. It may develop negatively (vandalism) in which case your version remains preferred by the masses. It may develop in a way you do not like, in which case the most you can do is continue to do some modicum of work here to stop that. I doubt you will want to do that. Lastly, it might develop in ways that you appreciate and subsequently you can share those changes back to your wiki (with appropriate attribution).
    • Regardless of all those points, Wikibooks still is at some disadvantage with respect to non free media. Some parts of any imported content will need to change regardless.
    • At the end of the day, it is the readers that are important, and doing nothing is probably the best way to find out what the readers prefer. Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy. (Conversely, consider how the lack of non free media will be felt for Wikibooks - all evidence indicates that users really like pictures and video.)
  2. Change your license for all future contributions. This may have the effects of shuttering your own shareability both to and from the wiki ecosystem and of decreasing the health of your own wiki. You however cannot change the license on the contributions already present, so I do not see this as practical for your purposes anyway...
  3. Convince the users here to stop. So far, I haven't seen anything persuasive to indicate they should, at the end of the day. "I don't like it" is basically what your concern boils down to. Which has rarely stopped anyone.
As for "it splits the effort", maybe so, but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue in respect to the topics it covers than anything Wikibooks could ever do.
Finally, if you are producing the superior product, you have nothing to worry about. The almighty search algorithm cares most about where people go, and if the content is there for you, they will go there. I anticipate, accordingly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
(Sorry Wikibookians for stepping on any of you lot's toes.) Izno (discusscontribs) 08:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all arguing whether this move is legal or not. Yes, the licensing permits this, and you are not the first to wholesale duplicate our work somewhere else. At the very least I can praise you for having the decency to credit our authors for their effort, which is more than other sites have done. I am directly appealing to your third point: convince users here to stop. It is beyond "I don't like it." If that were my only argument, I wouldn't bother.
I am all for the effort of information sharing. But, for example, at SW we chose not to duplicate an entire Pokedex because Bulbapedia has produced the best one anyone could possibly look for. And we link directly to it. We recognize that their effort far exceeds anything that we could produce (theoretically) so we didn't wholesale migrate it to SW. In doing so, not only are we respecting their expertise in the matter, we are strengthening user's access to the best possible source of information. WB isn't doing that. There's no effort to send users to the best possible source, it's glory hoarding for the sake of "See? We have content too." Bravo? That's nothing to be proud of. If you were really interested in supporting the gaming community, you'd join our efforts on StrategyWiki rather than pretend as if you are somehow a source for valuable gaming information. If someone has a question about the content of our guides, and they ask it here, who's going to answer it? You guys?? What are you going to do, forward the question on to us? This kind of stuff happens almost every day, and over the past 15 years, we've built up the community to deal with it because this is our passion. It seems like your only passion is amassing content.
"but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue"
I would absolutely love to hear your attempt to justify that statement. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: I don't want to discuss this too much because I don't like getting caught up in debates, but I do agree with @Izno: that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I will share my thoughts and opinion on this subject matter.
For one, wikis (provided you follow the licensing rules, such as Creative Commons or GFDL) are a group of volunteers who are creating content on a subject. There's a copyright disclaimer saying that you're putting your work out there to be redistributed by others. I've set up MediaWiki before, and it says something along the lines "if you don't want your content mercilessly edited or redistributed, do not submit it here." Nearly all wikis have been spun off from Wikipedia and have used it as a basis at one point or another. The fact that Wikipedia has a dual license makes it more flexible to reuse, as long as you properly attribute (which is common sense because we want to know who did the original work). If you were all for information sharing like you say you are, we wouldn't be arguing about this. A better idea would have been using the CC-BY-NC-SA license when you set up StrategyWiki back in 2006, as this license is incompatible with the Wikimedia Foundation wiki licenses.
I know you're talking about the StrategyWiki community, but can you speak for absolutely every single editor who has edited on the website? It's one thing if you created a guide yourself, but it's another thing to speak for every single editor (including inactive ones) like you "own" the wiki and its content. A wiki is a collaborative community effort -- no one should claim ownership over others' work. I'm beginning to think that your main incentive for posting is because you're concerned over losing site traffic, as I can't see why else you'd have a problem with content being redistributed, especially if attributed and credited properly.
Also, when you provided an example on Bulbapedia and its Pokedex, you were basically admitting to the restriction of some essential and valid game guide content simply because you think a community does it better. No group of people should be a gatekeeper of information. If Wikibooks allows Pokedex entries (provided no copying from Bulbapedia or some other external source with an incompatible license), then that would only help Wikibooks attract more editors because they would feel more free and that flexibility to add their own content rather than feel, "there's no need to because someone else already did it." Perhaps they have a different way in which they want to display the in-game data?
Also, I do play several types of video games (especially platformers, RPGs, and Warriors), so if someone had a question, I could probably answer it. There are two other users making a Link's Awakening 2019 guide and a South Park of Truth guide respectively. Are you going to tell the authors of those two guides that they are putting hollow content on the site? Let's say if the situation was reversed and you transwikied those pages back into your wiki. Perhaps the editors would mind, but the administrative staff of Wikibooks would not mind unless you don't properly attribute to Wikibooks. If I made a guide here, my own writing and all, go right ahead and take it if you want. It's there for others to benefit from.
I was late to the video game guide debate on Wikibooks myself (I wasn't here at the time), but if you had significant concerns or opposed the new policy, you could've let the community know back then. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was there, we didn't like it, and there wasn't much we could do. So we moved on. Procyon wrote large section of some of the guides you've transwiki'd. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy."
I also laugh at this. We have conducted extensive studies and surveys on this subject, and the current design of our guides is the result of those investigations. We listen to our users routinely and are constantly implementing improvements to make our presentation as clear and intuitive as possible. If you truly believed our format was so ill-conceived, you wouldn't be trying to pass said work off as your own. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did I say on the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney article that it is listed on StrategyWiki as the #1 most popular guide? As for an earlier comment about the images, it takes a lot of time to add them, especially when manually entering a summary and a non-free use rationale. Nearly all of the Zelda: Ocarina of Time ones have been added, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney ones have all been added. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I didn't want to say this, in an effort to not appear callous, but I'm honestly less concerned about you stealing our traffic. We've put a lot of work into SW and earned our position in the search engines. I don't really think WB is going to make much of a dent in that. That's not why I'm concerned. What I'm concerned with is there's already so many options for video game wikis who specialize in video games. Could we rip each other's work? Absolutely, as you've said, there's nothing stopping that as long as the licenses are compliant. Do we do it? No. We stand on the merits of what we have to offer, and send people to relevant sources of information when the opportunity presents itself.
You've lifted entire guides from our site. You've modified the content to better fit your site's formatting, but you haven't really made an improvements to them. And if someone comes across one of our guides on your site, finds a point that needs updating or clairifcation, and decides to contribute that nugget of info here, are you going to then retroactively apply that piece of information on our site? Of course you're not. Nor is the person who authored that content because, in all likelihood, that person isn't going to take the time to discover where that content originated. They see it here, they fix it here.
We've spent years making SW a welcome home for authors passionate about sharing video game information with the general internet population, all out of sheer willingness to share the information and collaborate. You could just join us over there, collaborate with us and help improve the site, but you're not. Instead you're diluting the effort that we've put into making SW a home for such authors all so that you can say, "Look, we have game guides too!"
Cool, you've got a Link's Awakening guide going that you established yourselves. I wish you felt like SW would be a good platform to develop that guide on, but you don't. So be it. But at least that's your guide. And sure, other sites are going to rip it and further dilute the effort, but we're not going to be a part of that because it's antithetical to what we're trying to achieve. At the end of the day, I can't stop you. You seem hell bent on proceeding with your plan to transwiki from us whether it's actually a good idea or not. But at least have the decency to be honest about why you're doing it. You want WB to have some relevance in this area so you're grabbing the best content available in order to climb the ladder without doing any of the work. Good for you if you can accomplish that. Bad for everyone else. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 16:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the current primary author of the Wikibook The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019 video game). I would like to make it clear that this book was not entirely developed here, as one page was imported from StrategyWiki during the import process. You can view this page here. Credit is given to StrategyWiki in the references footnote of this article of course, and such credit was given prior to the start of this discussion as you can see in the page history. I have no desire to harm StrategyWiki or it's community. Quite the opposite, I personally would much rather StrategyWiki flourish over the inflexible static and commercial guides which have dominated the industry since it's inception. That said there are good reasons I picked WikiBooks for this guide, namely because I don't intend this guide to be for gamers specifically (Though it can certainly be used that way). Plenty of guides with that purpose already exist, and I would bring nothing new or exceptional to the table there. Indeed, I consider my writing subpar compared to more seasoned authors of strategy guides at the moment. I want this guide to be for students of media and popular culture, as well as for other non traditional gamers who may use it in some media centric study. As such I have taken an approach which tries to make the writing style of the guide more accessible over a traditional strategy guide, as well as include notes on game design, and real world influences as encouraged by the Wikibooks:Strategy guides guidelines. Currently this book is in development and these haven't been incorporated as much as I've planned, but writing a strategy guide, or any book, is a significant undertaking and is hard work (I'm sure you are quite aware of this!). Under the StrategyWiki guidelines, such fluff is explicitly discouraged[2] and that's ideal for a wiki focused on strategy guides because fluff like this does reduce it's utility to gamers just trying to beat the game. If you are interested, I would be more then happy to help transwiki the guide to StrategyWiki once complete, and to make a version without such fluff to make a version more suitable for gamers and StrategyWiki guidelines. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mbrickn:, I actually love the idea of what you're trying to achieve. And you're correct, as you've described it, it wouldn't quite be at home at SW, but I'm very curious to see how your work turns out, and to see if there are any lessons to be learned about how to make our guides more accessible as well. If you'd like to trasnwiki it to SW, sans the "fluff" we'd welcome your contributions. I'm not anti-competition for the sake of having "sole domain" over video game guides. Heaven knows we have plenty of competition on that front, and we're a bit of a David to Curse Inc.'s Goliath. I wish you the best of luck with your guide, and hope it serves the audience you're seeking to address. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll send a ping when it's more developed. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, companion guides for "see this design decision" would be amazing and are currently outside our scope. I remember watching a video about the game design behind the first level of Super Mario Bros. (this link goes into detail, I don't remember the original source). Having books like this that went over some of these concepts throughout games would fall inline perfectly with wikibooks existing focus, and would pair perfectly with StrategyWiki guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 23:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can view SW in Monobook
@Mbrickn: While my following reason is purely based on layout and cosmetics, I also like the look of Wikimedia Foundation wikis (vector and monobook, mainly the latter) more than StrategyWiki's default layout. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 21:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False flag argument: you can very easily change SW's presentation to vector and monobook at will. See the thumbnail. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do seem to be focused a lot on default site design & how most others would perceive it 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 21:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not too terribly important to the topic at hand though, right? Besides, on most MediaWiki sites anyone can make the appearance whatever they want in their preferences. On this topic through, StrategyWiki does have the functional advantage of being able to make it's sidebar wholly optimized for gaming contents by default. As I said earlier, Wikibooks and StrategyWiki have different objectives, and that's fine.--Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the imported strategywiki guides, I happen to own most of the games that have guides with substantial amounts of content. I don't think most readers or editors are particularly sentimental over stubs. Would it resolve this whole issue if I just started writing a bunch of new guides from scratch? It would be a lot of work and take a lot of time, but I'm willing to do it if it puts this to rest. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If 2005-Fan had merely restored all the deleted content here, cleaned it up, Maybe imported a few updated pages with the latest changes, we would have had 0 issues. I would love to see original content being built here.
By targeting our most high quality guides, they made it personal. I know a number of small independent gaming wikis who are watching this discussion closely. This discussion has not been encouraging to them. Prod (discusscontribs) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: The most high quality guides were prob because they were of the most popular games. I actually did the Ace Attorney ones upon request from someone else. I was mainly focused on the Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy ones (to fill in gaps and compensate for those 15 years lost). I typed above that I'll stop importing, and I haven't done the Pokemon or MapleStory guides (which I see are featured ones as well). I see your Luigi's Mansion guide is at 100%, but I started a fresh one at Luigi's Mansion just days ago (although it currently only talks about the ghosts, which itself is from a redirected Wikipedia article). I keep planning but haven't gotten around to building up a Fire Emblem Warriors guide yet. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

importupload for Wikibooks[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Proposal to update Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office with Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office/sandbox[edit source]

I've been working on a new page for Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office, which I have created at Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office/sandbox. Its rather more detailed, and it combines elements of Wikibooks Stacks/Departments with that of the present page.

When visitors first visit the site, the most likely way they're going to search is by going to "browse" on the left sidebar. Hopefully this page will be more engaging and give a better sense of where to find content than the current page. Any views are most welcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Leaderboard:. Another thing I was thinking of doing was to raise Shelf:Recreational activities to Department:Recreational activities. It seems to me that this is the most popular shelf in Department:Miscellaneous, so it makes sense to give it more prominence. I've been studying the Wikibooks Stacks a fair bit, and I think it is actually very easy. I think what you need to do is:
  1. Update Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office.
  2. Create: "Department: Recreational activities" and "Category:Department:Recreational activities" with the relevant templates
  3. "Shelf:Recreational activities", "Shelf:Collecting", "Shelf:Games", "Shelf:Outdoor recreation", "Shelf:Physical fitness", "Shelf:Tourism", "Shelf:Arts and crafts": migrate parent=Miscellaneous to parent=Recreational activities
  4. "Shelf:Athletic games", "Shelf:Board games", "Shelf:Card games", "Shelf:Electronic games", "Shelf:Game design" are already subshelves of Games, so wont need migration.
  5. Rebuild these shelves through purging.
Any thoughts? If it didn't work it would be easy to reverse. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 10:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on my work[edit source]

I have made some changes that I would like to advertise:

As a general point, I'm learning more about Wikibooks Stacks, although I don't fully understand it I'm getting more aware of how it can be manipulated. I think I might manipulate Stacks further, I am concerned about smartphone rendering on pages. I imagine many users are put off by this, as most users today use mobile devices to access websites.

Any comments are welcome. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new Main Page[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Eager inexperienced editors[edit source]

Since the beginning of the year the Oberon book has received the attention of two eager but inexperienced editors. Scanning interactively or by automation, small syntax errors were found and within 24 hours, several pages were edited. In most cases the changes were helpful. Closing an open tag, adding the BookCat template at the bottom of a page & etc. In a few cases damage occurred. For example </div> was added at the end of a heading when it belonged at the end of the page. Consequently the default font of the page became the Wikimedia default rather than the font attribute in the opening <div ...>.

One such edit is easily reviewed and approved or corrected. When a dozen or more edits occur in 24 hours, review, with correction of erroneous edits, can become a sizeable burden.

Regrettably in my two cases, explaining the difficulties resulted in the editors reverting all of their edits. Not a good outcome. Currently I can imagine two possibilities to improve the circumstances.

(1) Protect pages.

(2) When an editor is new to a book, require an interval between edits. For example, after a first edit to a book, require at least a week before a 2nd edit is allowed. As edits accumulate, the interval can decrease.

In my view, administration required for protection is excessive. The interval between edits seems a workable possibility. What other ideas are there?

Regards, ... PeterEasthope (discusscontribs) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterEasthope: I've got a counter-proposal; how about fixing the lint errors on your book? The reasons you're geting these problems (as far as I can see) is that the book has lint errors, meaning that well-meaning but maybe inexperienced editors try to fix them, but cause problems in doing so. See Special:LintErrors for the special page; there are also help pages at mw:Help:Extension:Linter and w:Wikipedia:Linter. If you get stuck, please ask at Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance. If you fix the lint errors then things might sort themselves out. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will learn to use the lint tools, ... PeterEasthope (discusscontribs) 15:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do ask if you need help. For example, to check the lint errors for a particular page, go to page and click on the "Page information" link on the tools section of the left sidebar. If there are any lint errors on the page it will show there at the bottom of the "page information" page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commented out the first closing span tag in my sandbox copy of HTMLDoc.Mod. Sure enough "Page information" shows "Lint errors, Missing end tag, 1". Will work through the pages, hunting errors. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (discusscontribs) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterEasthope: I think I've fixed it. If you have any more queries please ask. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image-linking with regards to licensing[edit source]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to bring the following discussion to your attention: c:Special:Permanentlink/559354101#Question_about_licensing_–_fulfilling_different_licensing_requirements.

I was asking about linking images and licensing, and did get an answer with information I wasn't aware of. I took a quick look at your image-help and did not find a corresponding hint either. So maybe you'd like to add information about this to your help pages. I will do so for german wikibooks.

Best regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HirnSpuk I apologize for seeing this so late. At the link you posted you made an interesting point about physical book and ebook licensing. I think instead of manual attribution, which is unsustainable to do accurately on larger works and error prone, it may be best if a template were developed which automatically handles attribution at the end of a book for all used assets using machine readable tags on commons. I'm unsure if this is truly a good approach or if there are better ideas though - Just what came to mind. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mbrickn, no need to apologize :-)... I need to, because I forgot to clearly mention, what's the problem: Images usually may not be linked, because licensing-requirements are lost that way. There even might be problems, when printing content.
I like the idea of machine readable tags, though I'm not skilled enough to even remotely jugde how this might be feasible and what benefits it could bring. In svg you can attribute within the file pretty easy, though I don't know if anybody uses this.
I was playing with the Cite-Extension to do something similar. Though it needs manual work. If you take a look at this edit: b:de:Special:Diff/prev/960255. For now I didn't make a Template out of this, it was just simple playing around.
Maybe all Wikibooks could team up and talk about a "possible solution" (assuming this is some kind of a problem), so we could present something to the mediawiki developers and/or to commons with one voice? This might be interesting to other Wikiprojects as well (thinking about e. g. Wikivoyage)?
Best regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 08:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating subshelves for Electronic Games[edit source]

Now that there are a few strategy guides on WikiBooks, I've realized that Shelf:Electronic games, a shelf which predates the recent decision, is getting a bit cluttered by vastly different book types. I propose creating two subshelves to help readers find material relevant to their interests.

There are a few edge cases that don't fit neatly into either subshelf, such as History of video games as well as Metal Gear Series, which is closer to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter in format then a strategy guide. A third potential subshelf might include guides to simulation games/tools which existed on Wiki-Books prior to the strategy guide decision such as Trainz, X-Plane Flight Simulator, SimCity and Urban Planning and 0 A.D., but as these are the only current items in this category, I'm unsure if it's currently warranted.

Thank you for your time and consideration! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbrickn: thanks for sharing your thoughts! I was thinking of this idea but decided to let it of until more books are written. There are only two books about Minecraft and I don’t think a shelf with only two books is worth creating. However, it seems there are 4 books about Mario so I Support creating Shelf:Mario, Shelf:Mario franchise, Shelf:Mario video games, or whatever. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind this proposal either. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I worded that poorly, though I'm glad I did because your idea is intriguing. I was simply proposing a general strategy guide shelf, to contain strategy guides as a whole separately from other electronic game content. However I do think some larger series would benefit from their own shelves, as you mentioned. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 19:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn: It’s possible to have both. Like there’s Shelf:History by continent, it’s possible to have Shelf:Books about electronic games by series (surely there’s a better way to word it). Then it’s possible also to have Shelf:Strategy guides. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020:That makes sense. I think I would arrange it like such (Using Mario and Final Fantasy as placeholder series):
  • Electronic Games
    • Game Development
    • Strategy Guides
      • Mario Series
      • Final Fantasy Series

or with an extra shelf

  • Electronic Games
    • Game Development
    • Strategy Guides
      • Strategy Guides by Series
        • Mario Series
        • Final Fantasy Series

What do you think? Thanks you for your input! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 18:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbrickn: I think it’s over all a good idea but with a small problem. There can be books about Mario series and Final Fantasy Series that aren’t necessary strategy guides (for example books about the history of these games). That’s why I suggest the following categorization:
  • Electronic games
    • Game development
    • Strategy Guides
    • Games by Series/franchise
      • Final Fantasy Series
      • Mario Series
      • Minecraft
      • Pokemon Series
      • ...

That being said I think franchise is better than series since not all notable games are part of a series. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 20:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see! That makes more sense, and I Support your version as you have laid out.--Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but how about simply:
  • Electronic games
    • Game development
    • Strategy guides
    • Final Fantasy
    • Super Mario
    • Minecraft
    • Pokemon
    • ...
Slightly simplified would be better I feel. We can put (say) a Final Fantasy book on both the Strategy guides and Final Fantasy shelves, if both are applicable.
Also, I feel maybe we should rename "Shelf:Electronic games" to "Shelf:Video games"? Although they aren't synonyms, the books we currently have all fit the description of video games (from looking through them earlier). It's a name that's more commonly used. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. I'd Support that as well. Very versatile. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I overlooked Shelf:Game design somehow, which while not quite the same as Game Development, is being used as a shelf for that topic in common use. It already exists, so there's no need for a seperate Game Development shelf.
Oh yeah, it exists but should be in Shelf:Electronic games and not in Shelf:Games. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 08:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 10 books about Mario. I suggest to create a shelf for Mario games.-Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 06:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, I think we shouldcreate a shelf called electronic games by series that will work sort of like how Shelf:History by continent works. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may work. I've been thinking and perhaps it may be best to have some sort of list of popular culture series instead of limiting them to games alone. For example, there is Guide to The Lord of the Rings, analyzing the books, but there are also over a dozen video games based on the series as well, in addition to board games, movies, etc. This would be of potential value to someone studying popular culture. Combined with the organizational style proposed by User:Mrjulesd would offer more flexibility for authors of Wikibooks on other related subjects. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStax/Wikibooks Collaboration?[edit source]

OpenStax seems to be on a similar trajectory with a lot of the textbooks in similar subjects to that on Wikibooks. What if we were to share resources in between and complete some of the books on our end, and help begin some of theirs, or we gain some additional editors/people who could assist in making the books. I know this is a bit of a far-out idea, but I could look into it if it seems like a remotely good idea. Also, I'm a new user because I'm intrigued by the project, and so my lack of knowledge and general experience is very present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addy135 (talkcontribs)

@Addy135: Please explain your proposal further. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStax has a lot of funding and editors for their work, and its typically for free use (aside from printed publication prices from them). If Wikibooks were to partner with them, there could be additional funding and editors creating books over here at Wikibooks possibly? I'm not really too sure on this idea and I'll have to come back to it later. Addy135 (discusscontribs) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Addy135: I am not sure how exactly you want Wikibooks to partner - some examples would be helpful. Any freely-licensed book can be imported here after all. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I'll look more into it. How would I close this section? Addy135 (discusscontribs) 03:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading room discussions aren't really closed per say. They typically go into an archive from what I understand once discussion has stopped and someone decides to sweep the room, like Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2021/January. I'm relatively new to editing Wikibooks, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. :) --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per working with OpenStax content in Wikibooks, there are a few things to note. Organizational partnering (In terms of sharing resources officially, etc.) is something that's a bit out of my depth, but it would probably require community consensus, and possibly the consent of the Wikimedia foundation and Rice University, which manages OpenStax depending on the exact nature of the collaboration. However, as Leaderboard points out, we are mostly free to import OpenStax content to Wikibooks due to compatible licenses. There are a few caveats of course. The biggest is that not all OpenStax content is open enough for Wikibooks, due to incompatible licenses. For example the OpenStax Calculus Book volumes 1, 2 and 3 are licensed as CC-BY-SA-'NC-4.0. The NC, or non-commercial component, is right out for most Wikimedia projects, based on the Wikimedia Commons document describing how they license things here here. Fortunately most OpenStax books do not have this non commercial requirement, making this a non issue for them. The second issue (Which is more on Wikibooks then on OpenStax) is that Wikibooks uses Creative Commons 3.0 and GDFL, and OpenStax uses Creative Commons 4.0. I'm not sure how CC 4.0 licenses interact with a site using a 3.0 license for it's content, but I suspect this is the easier factor to solve (But I'm not a lawyer).--Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudobot change proposals[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Wikibooks:Administrators/Temporary administrators[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Adding URL file upload to admins and uploaders[edit source]

I'm noticing cases where non-free images are legitimately taken from different sources (for instance, from StrategyWiki), and hence I was wondering whether we could enable URL file upload for admins and uploaders, so that they do not have to manually download the images every time they want to use it. What do you think? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it could be a timesaver, especially on slow connections. I'm not an uploader though. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 01:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly useful, but on a sidenote: do the recent videogame-related uploads (character sprites, item icons, step-by-step game screenshots) even meet WB:NFCC? They're certainly nice for players, but many don't seem necessary for reader's understanding. I'm not familiar with Wikibook's interpretation of what is and isn't acceptable, but if it's anything close to other Wikimedia projects their usage would fail NFCC. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you provide a good enough rationale for both gamers and non-gamers to understand (e.g. why it's important have this exact picture and what it shows), it should be fine. For large artworks or box covers I try and upload them smaller. If I'm not mistaken, this is probably why only certain people are given the uploader role. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That, and the fact that free-use images should absolutely go to Commons. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-is-creative-commons-and-what-do-you-do
  2. "StrategyWiki:Guide/Walkthrough" (in en). 9 February 2020. https://strategywiki.org/wiki/StrategyWiki:Guide/Walkthrough.